Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

To kick off from where the last speaker finished: there will be no policing of bedrooms under my watch. I rise as a proud, long-term and committed supporter of marriage for same-sex couples—not like the Johnny-come-latelies on the other side of the chamber. I support the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 to enable it. As the member for Brisbane said recently in this place: 'We will both enjoy an unblemished history in voting for pathways for change.' If only the Senate opposition leader or the member for Sydney could say the same thing.

To be frank, listening to those in opposition, who parade around with false piety on this issue, is becoming tiresome. I am not going to try and pretend this debate about a plebiscite has been easy, because it hasn't been. It is rare in this place that you debate something so intimate and personal as your own relationship, let alone consider putting it up for a public vote. Many people have written to me and said: 'In light of my personal circumstances, why I would vote for the plebiscite?' The answer is simple: I am the federal Liberal member for Goldstein. I have a responsibility to discharge my duties to the people of my electorate and my party, not just myself. Many Goldstein residents came up to me during the election and asked my view on the matter. My answer has been consistent: the coalition would hold a plebiscite, and I would vote for change so long as there was a sensible respect for religious liberty. When the issue arises at the appropriate time, I will act consistent with my commitment, because, to quote former Prime Minister Abbott:

… the last thing you should do is dud the people who voted for you.

It is true that I have always said that a plebiscite is not my first preference to change this law. Plebiscites may not be preferable, but it is not that they are an illegitimate tool. Many have been used around the world on this issue to resolve it. Of course, Ireland did require it by constitution. It is true that the debate was, at times, offensive. There were people who supported the change who disrespected other people's world view and faith on the purpose of marriage. Similarly, there were people who opposed change who dismissed the value of same-sex couples and their families. No-one would voluntarily go through the experience again. But if people were asked whether they would go through it again for the outcome then the answer would almost most assuredly be 'yes', because this outcome is worth fighting for. The overwhelming 'yes' vote in Ireland was a moment of national unity. It disappoints me that our country is being robbed of that moment of national unity by the opposition. Those who opposed change had to accept the outcome, unless they wanted to renounce support for democracy. It became a watershed moment. Debate about equality before the law was over—permanently.

The plebiscite will call on Australians to show mutual respect. That can be achieved. I have great faith in the Australian people to argue this issue respectfully and to stand up against those who do not. Offensive conduct is the exception; it is not the rule. I am proud to say that, despite the deeply personal nature of the debate, at all times I have sought to be as respectful as possible in this discussion, and particularly toward those I disagree with. More importantly, I am proud to be a member of a party and a government where so many people have engaged in this debate with incredible respect. The Prime Minister has set an important example, as, might I add, has the member for Canning. I commend both of them for their contributions, and I have no doubt that others will follow in their footsteps.

I do not believe the case for change can win in Australia. I believe it will win. Convincing Australians for a change in the law is the fulfilment of our values as a nation. Arguing for that is a winning strategy. That is why the opposition leader's divisive approach is so appalling. Parliamentarians should always be mindful that their words have a special influence in setting the tone of public debates. The opposition leader's demeanour is truly extraordinary. Australians are apparently capable of deliberations to elect him to the highest political office in this country but not to discuss one of his policies.

There are legitimate critiques of the plebiscite, not least of which is that Western liberal democratic tradition is that parliament is charged with the primary role of protecting people's rights, but it is blindingly obvious that Labor's approach is not driven by some sort of philosophical principle but purely politics. People are being put second. While Aboriginal Australians are desperately fighting to get on the ballot paper, they are trying to con LGBTI Australians to get off it. The opposition leader has used the debate around the plebiscite to call anyone who he disagrees with as promoting homophobia, bigotry and hate speech. It does nothing to bring the Australian community together for a respectful debate. It is also deeply irresponsible and inaccurate. Around a third of Australians have a different view from the position that I take, based on things such as tradition or faith. That is nearly the same number who, strangely, give Labor their primary vote, and yet we somehow manage to let them govern the country from time to time.

Disrespecting them does nothing to advance the case for change. Perhaps the opposition leader's worst contribution is to say that we cannot win a plebiscite. In doing so, he shows a lack of faith in the cause and also in himself. You cannot have it both ways. Arguing that a plebiscite is unnecessary because public opinion polls show Australians support a change and concurrently suggesting the plebiscite will lose is an embarrassing logical fallacy. For years advocates have argued marriage equality should be supported because the majority of Australians support it. Over six years of the last Labor government, politicians could not pass this change. In this parliament there is a pathway forward. No party has enough MPs or senators to get a bill passed through either house. The plebiscite represents a workable solution to an issue that does not deserve to be delayed any longer.

Sitting back and waiting is not cost-free. People do say hurtful things—we acknowledge that. They have before, they will now and they will again in the future. And none of that will change based on whether we have a plebiscite, even after there is a change in the law. The absurdity of the opposition leader's approach is that he argues that publicly debating the issue through will be tough. Yes, in part he is right. But, if that is reason enough, then we should never have advocated change in the first place, because the price will always be too high. I guess that is the cowardice when your sole interest in the debate is political and not principle.

Implicit in the opposition leader's comments are that LGBTI Australians are weak. I am going to make this crystal clear: we are not victims, and I take exception to him implying we are. Worse, the opposition leader and his shadow Attorney-General have validated the idea that those who seek change should just sit back and wait. It is not the right of others who have never had to wait to decide for those who have. My good friend Paul Ritchie got me to reflect on this point deeper when he recently sent me a section of Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail dated 16 April 1963. While some of the language is stronger than I would apply in this situation, the sentiment is appropriate. King Jr said:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly ...

That is why now is our time. We must seize it. This is worth fighting for.

Choosing the false comfort to wait for change rather than fight for it is deeply irresponsible. That is not what those who have fought for change before us have done to make a more just world, a more just community and, importantly, a more just Australia. In that time, couples will have partners who die and will never be able to experience the full legal recognition of their relationship. Such an attitude comes from the hubris of thinking change is inevitable. Change is never inevitable and attitudes change.

Sadly, Labor have succeeded in conning people into thinking that they can just sit back and wait. Labor are not saying it because they think it will deliver a better outcome; they are saying it for deeply selfish reasons. For six years they failed to change the law as people like me, who advocated for it, had to sit through it. We watched Kevin Rudd oppose change because it offended his culture and religion, and then Julia Gillard opposed it on cultural grounds, and then we had Kevin Rudd who came back, changed his mind and did nothing. Then, as soon as they were in opposition, Labor said, 'We've all waited too long.' As my grandmother would say, quite rightly, 'What cheek!' If Labor only finds their social conscience in opposition, I say: keep you there. We have waited long enough.

The only reason Labor do not want a plebiscite is that they want to change the law one day in the far-off future when they are in government, and I hope it is a long time in the future. It is not about people who want to get married; it is about them and their selfishness. Deep down Labor do not want a change under a Liberal government and a coalition government because they know it is a thoroughly liberal reform. It embodies the cultural and institutional conservatism of forward-looking liberalism by recognising the primacy and importance of marriage and seeking to ensure its enduring relevance for the 21st century, and it appeals to our belief that government should not dictate the terms of people's lives if they do no harm to others. It also appeals to one of the most basest liberal principles: all people are equal before the law and should enjoy the equal protection of the law. Australians who advocate for change are arguing for inclusiveness and a society built on responsibility and mutual respect. When the law changes it will be great day for our country. We will be a more perfect Commonwealth where everyone has an equal investment in Australian society.

Many people have raised the concern about the anxiety that a plebiscite might cause—I note that it has come up periodically in the speeches by those on the opposition benches—especially amongst young people. Somebody who contacted me went so far as to ask me what my younger self would feel watching his life being debated across the airwaves. Well, I can tell you a couple of things. Firstly, a younger me probably would not imagine that he would he standing here. Secondly, he would not imagine that he would have a number of colleagues who would be in similar circumstances standing up for a change in the law; or that he would have turned recently to the member for North Sydney, a few weeks ago, and asked genuinely, 'Did you ever imagine that on the floor of the House of Representatives you would watch the Prime Minister and opposition leader fight over who is more in favour of marriage for same-sex couples?'

I remember the time that I was coming to terms with my own sexuality in my teenage years. I spoke about it proudly in my first speech. I wrote recently in a column for The Sydney Morning Herald that the announcement of the plebiscite was emotional for me. It was true—it was. It took me back to that place when I was coming to terms with my sexuality and the silence and isolation made me doubt my legitimate place in this world. I know that many people in Australia have relived that pain. But in doing so, we lose sight of where it comes from. Yes, there were negative comments in those years, and bullying came from others. But, to be frank, I do not really remember those things or what others said, because in practice they are just background noise. That is part of the resilience, tragic though may be, of people growing up and learning how to deal with the world around them. Often it actually makes them stronger. In my case, I knew those comments were wrong.

This is where I think perhaps members of the opposition do not have a full appreciation of what that experience is like. The worst bullying never came from others—it came from within. The opposition leader clearly does not understand that experience. Young LGBTI Australians have no one to turn to for support. The people they most fear talking to are those they traditionally turn to for support—parents, siblings and friends—because those are the people you fear rejection from. It is this silence that feeds anxiety and doubt—left alone, isolated and often trapped and locked in a dungeon of negative thoughts that swirl within your own mind; alone and with no-one to talk to or relate to.

That is what the opposition has got wrong. A plebiscite is not a call to silence. It is an opportunity. It is a call for all of us to stand up for the type of county we want to be. I am always ready for that fight. The opposition sees defeat. That is why they have chosen silence.

See this speech in context